I also find the HiddenField check annoying. So I removed the two rules
that were talked about and removed the Checkstyle 3.5 configuration. I
haven't deleted the v4 configuration due to Vincent's comment (I've also
not upgraded, yet), so I let it stay for the moment. We can always
remove it later.

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=820554&view=rev

On 29.09.2009 19:20:57 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi Max,
> 
> Max Berger wrote:
> > Vincent,
> > 
> > 
> > 2009/9/29 Vincent Hennebert:
> >> I started to write my own checkstyle configuration from scratch some
> >> time ago, enabling everything that looked important to me. But I’d like
> >> to test it a bit more before submitting it.
> > 
> > Same here. See the checkstyle file for JEuclid as an example.
> > 
> > http://jeuclid.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/jeuclid/jeuclid/file/tip/support/build-tools/src/main/resources/jeuclid/checkstyle.xml
> > 
> >> Speaking of that, there’s a rule that I would suggest to disable: the
> >> HiddenFieldCheck. I don’t really see its benefit. It forces to find
> >> somewhat artificial names for variables, where the field name is exactly
> >> what I want. Sometimes a method doesn’t have a name following the
> >> setField pattern, yet still acts as a setter for Field. This rule would
> >> make sense if we were using a Hungarian-like notation for variables
> >> (mMember, pParam, etc.), but that’s not the case in FOP.
> >> WDYT?
> > 
> > I like the rule, BUT I am ok with an exception for setters and
> > constructors (this is IMO a new option in checkstyle 5):
> > http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_coding.html#HiddenField
> 
> (Actually this option is available in checkstyle 4.)
> 
> But what is the benefit of that rule? I find it annoying, so unless I am
> convinced of its usefulness I’d rather disable it.
> 
> 
> Vincent




Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to